A Brief History
On September 29, 522 B.C., following two years of bizarre and bloody political intrigue, King Darius I the Great of Persia killed a Magian (think of the magi or wise men of the Bible) usurper, thereby securing Darius’s hold as great king of the Persian Empire.
Digging Deeper
Most westerners know of Darius as one of the two Persian monarchs who attempted and failed to conquer Greece. Darius’s forces were those who suffered the iconic defeat at the Battle of Marathon in 490 B.C. Yet, this invasion happened over thirty years into Darius’s reign and just four years before his death. As such, the Greco-Persian Wars occurred only in the final third of the great king’s reign. Much of his long and storied career is rarely remembered today. Prior to his foray into Greece, he had expanded the Persian Empire to become the largest empire the ancient world would see (yes, even geographically larger than the Roman Empire).
Of course how exactly Darius came to the throne to undertake such imperial expansion has been the subject of much mystery and debate over the past 2500 years.
Over the course of these past centuries, historians have divided into two camps over whether or not Darius legitimately came to the throne or if he was something of a usurper. According to the traditional story, the first camp, which draws upon most ancient sources, believes that around the time of the death of then Great King Cambyses, a Magus named Gaumata took over the throne. According to this version of the story, Cambyses dreamt of his brother, Bardiya, being a potential rival to his throne and so Cambyses had Bardiya assassinated. BUT Cambyses kept the murder a secret. This blunder allowed Gaumata to seize the opportunity to impersonate Bardiya as the new great king of Persia with no one being any the wiser, and yes, that apparently included even the wife and women of Bardiya’s harem…
From there, the traditional story gets even more akin to something on a cable TV drama series. Eventually, a Persian noble named Otanes suspected Gaumata was indeed an imposter. Otanes revealed his suspicions to his daughter Phaidime, who was married to Bardiya. Because Otanes knew that the Magus known as Gaumata had earlier had his ears severed by Cyrus the Great, Otanes told his daughter to feel for the Magus’s ears under his flowing locks as they slept together. Apparently not having noticed this physical difference earlier on her own accord, she did as her father instructed. To what must have been her surprise, that’s right, she found no ears on the head of her husband, thereby confirming Otanes’s suspicions. After Otanes’s daughter informed her father of her discovery, Otanes along with six others, including Darius, surprised Gaumata at a castle, where the seven conspirators stabbed the false king to death on September 29, 522 B.C.
Out of the seven, it fell upon Darius to become the new ruler. To legitimize his new throne, he subsequently married Atossa, a daughter of Cyrus the Great (Persia’s first great king) and a sister of Cambyses. Atossa would go on to bear Darius’s son and successor Xerxes of the famous Battle of Thermopylae, memorialized in the major motion picture 300.
The problem with the above story is that it is not only entertaining (if you like political blood and guts types of intrigues!), but it really seems to work in the favor of Darius, the ultimate winner of the whole mess, perhaps a little too well. Thus, multiple revisionist historians have taken a different stance on the whole incident claiming that Gaumata was in fact Bardiya, the legitimate heir to Cambyses, and Darius fabricated the story to legitimize his own coup. Such scholars point to how if Darius’s version is correct, it means that even Bardiya’s own wife believed Gaumata to be her husband until her father had to convince her otherwise.
Question for students (and subscribers): So, which account seems most credible to you? The original sources, i.e. those closest to the event would have us believe that after a prophetic dream, one king had his brother killed thereby allowing a magus to seize power, duping the dead heir’s wife and various others, until a group of nobles slew him and then redeemed their nation’s monarchy by having one of the usurper’s murderers marry into the legitimate royal family. Or do you instead agree with modern revisionists who instead argue that Darius simply killed the actual brother of Cambyses and made up a nice story to legitimize his actions? Yet, even if the modern account sounds more credible, keep in mind, no ancient sources necessarily tell that story. In any event, please let us know what you believe in the comments section below this article.
If you liked this article and would like to receive notification of new articles, please feel welcome to subscribe to History and Headlines by liking us on Facebook and becoming one of our patrons!
Your readership is much appreciated!
Historical Evidence
The oldest source on the matter is the Behistun Inscription from Darius’s reign, which provides Darius’s take on how he came to power. The inscription also includes an image of Gaumata under Darius’s foot!
The famous Greek historian Herodotus writing in the century following this events and known simultaneously as “the Father of History” and “the Father of Lies” also recounts the story.
For an excellent scholarly account of the history of the ancient Persian Empire, see Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (Eisenbrauns, 2002).
For more information, please see…
Abbott, Jacob. Darius the Great: Makers of History. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2013.
Poolos, J. and Arthur Meier Schlesinger. Darius the Great (Ancient World Leaders). Chelsea House Pub, 2008.
<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="232 http://www.crackedhistory.com/?p=232">151 Comments
The account based on the original sources is questionable, especially regarding the fact that Gaumata apparently fooled everyone into believing that he was Cambyses’ brother. Likewise, how did Gaumata find out that Cambyses assassinated his brother, considering that the record indicates that Cambyses kept it a secret (Gaumata would not have impersonated Bardiya if he knew that he was alive.)? Also, Cambyses’ prophetic dream would have been unknown to others. In my opinion, the modern interpretation seems more credible, though the ancient sources do not necessarily confirm their version of the story. Therefore, it is necessary to ask, “What were the justifications or motives of the nobles for overthrowing King Bardiya?” Moreover, Darius’ marriage to Cyrus’ daughter Atossa certainly contributed to legitimizing his reign, but why does it seem that Atossa was content with the murder of one of her brothers? If we were to believe the modern interpretation, then the redemption of the nation’s monarchy suggests that the nobles and others felt that King Bardiya’s short reign was an embarrassment compared to previous reigns.Thus, the nobles conspired to murder Bardiya and Darius’ eventual marriage to Atossa (who thought little of Bardiya) symbolized an attempt to restore contemporary Persia with Cyrus’ reign.
The first time I read this story in Herodotus I knew it smelled rotten. Herodotus traveled around asking questions and recording information that he eventually put together in his history. Alot of his information is just flat out wrong. It is obvious that he derived his information in regards to Darius’ ascension from the Behistun Inscription, which means our only source comes from Darius’ account. This convenient death of Bardiya’s at the hands of his brother, Cambyses, fits well into Herodotus’ account of Cambyses being insane and tyrannical. However, we know from archaeological evidence that Cambyses was not as crazy as Herodotus relates him to be. The whole incident of Cambyses murdering the Apies bull highlights his craziness and provides a convenient death by divine retribution, but the calf was dug up and evidence shows that Cambyses honored him and performed all the proper rites and other stuff. It seems that this crazy image of Cambyses is part of this fabricated story of Darius and points to the fact that Cambyses and his brother were probably both assassinated. Whether Cambyses was assassinated or not, Darius definitely used the transition of power to usurp power from Bardiya for himself.
Though the original sources might be too entertaining, it could be true… I personally would side with the modern interpretation because we have studied these kinds of things for so many years, I feel like we have enough evidence to prove whether or not Gaumata did it on purpose or not. I would say he definitely did it on purpose. If the original sources are accurate, why impersonate your brother unless you had a reason to do so?
I agree with the modern revisionists. I just don’t see why Cambyses would kill his brother. I know that the article says “Cambyses dreamt of his brother, Bardiya, being a potential rival to his throne and so Cambyses had Bardiya assassinated.” but still it was only a dream. The article doesn’t give enough information about Bardiya for me to know if he was a good or bad guy.
Dear DaVante,
Thank you for your post! Would you prefer these articles be longer? I am trying to go for ones that can be read in 3-5 minutes or so, but as we are just starting out the site, we would be interested to know if the articles are a) too long, b) too short, or c) just right with regards to length.
Thanks!
Sincerely,
Dr. Zarzeczny
A) too long
Sadly, as with much history of this era, much documented, verifiable proof has been lost. Could more information have been given? No doubt. Would that data have been enough to give an in depth thought process? Most likely not. Personally, I do agree with you, however the annals of time hide too much for true belief or knowledge to deliver a conclusive answer.
I
believe this was a way Darius defiantly became the ruler of the throne. I
cannot see this possible, for someone to be able to impersonate the ruler with
little to no suspicion of even his wife. Now he may have had several wives, for
that I don’t know, but if the man had no ears I’m sure someone would of noticed
much earlier.
I would have to say the story as good as it is is just that, a story. Darius and the six others killed him just to get to the throne.
I’m leaning towards the revisionists on this one. I think
Darius did not want to take responsibility for what he did, so he made up a
story to cover up what really happen.
I agree with modern revisionist historians. It is much more likely that Darius would have killed the actual Bardiya and made up the story to explain his claim to the throne. It is extremely unlikely that none of the family members would have recognized the differences between Gaumata and Bardiya, not even his wife. Also, Herodotus has proven that he cannot be trusted to display only factual evidence since he has come to be known as “the father of lies.”
I agree with the modern revisionists because the first story is by far false in my opinion. If an imposter with no ears came to power that would cause difficulties from the start because he cant hear. Also there has been many times when a man kills another man to seize power so that sounds more correct
I agree with the modern revisionists it is more likely that Darius helped spread the story in order to legitimize his rise to power, so no one would question it. And when it comes to sources,
ancient sources they are not always reliable. Since they tend to add information when
they did not know what happened, and as it was pointed out Herodotus is known
to be a liar and a historian.
I personally agree with modern revisionists. The story seems far too ridiculous to be true, if they didn’t create the story the coup wouldn’t be justified.
I have to side with the modern revisionists given the potential inaccuracy of Herodotus’ historical records. Furthermore, I believe Darius hoped to give his reign some legitimacy by spreading such a story, however entertaining and far-fetched it may be.
I agree with the modern revisionists because I can clearly see how this story “seems” made up in a sense. It is obvious and I believe that Darius is lying saying that he could kill Bardiya. Just so he can make a story of saying he has claimed the throne and is rising with power.
I have to side with the modern revisionists. Although the story is entertaining and probably a fun tale to pass on, the chances of him being able to impersonate the throne is unlikely. How would no one be able to identify him if only by his severed ears? Part of me likes keeping this story the way it is as to leave the whim of the story intact. Most stories we hear from this time period sound just as far fetched and we accept those. So I guess I raise the question on why this story out of all the others?
I agree with the modern interruption, unfortunately there are very few accurate historical facts. Herodotus was a historical storyteller. The articles are a good length, entertaining, and precise in information.
It would be awesome if the story that was the most crazy was the truth but I have a tendency to lean towards the story of Darius simple killing the brother and making up a story.
I agree with the modern
revisionists who believe that Darius Killed Cambyses’
brother in order to legitimize his actions. I feel that the
first account is a little over the top. I find it hard to believe that no
one noticed that Gautama was impersonating Bardiya.
The orginial story seems to be a little too entertaining and somewhat overly dramatic so I would have to agree with the modern revisionists that Darius just fabricated the story to have a reason as to why he had killed him which seems more likely then the first.
TMK
The traditional story seems really out there, What wife would not know that her husband did not have any ears? That is creepy. So I am going with the modern revisionist. It does not sound as Hollywood.
It is very unfortunate that much is lost over time. The original version may not seem realistic today, but at least there is some support to back it up. I’m not saying that it’s all true, but I bet it is closer to the story that we came up with out of thin air. I would hypothesize that, a “husband” doesn’t necessarily see his multiple wives that often. She probably didn’t care what he looked like as long as she was royalty.
I do not believe the first story. It not logical. Who would really kill their brother just because of a dream? And what woman would not recognize her own husband? Its pretty evident if someone has ears or not. That is just not something that a person over looks. So, I will have to go along with the modern version.
I think it is possible for the first tale to be true. If it were the second, then how would they have explained the second death? Both men would have to be dead in either case, but the first account covers that fact. While some would argue that a man wouldn’t kill his own brother in order to be king, people back then would do almost anything to be the leader and gain that power. It’s possible that Cambyses had some sort of mental disorder, making the dream seem like reality, therefore justifying his actions. What I don’t understand is how his wife would not have realized that she was sleeping with someone who was not her husband. Unless identical, I would think she would have noticed.
I agree with the modern revisionists. How could a wife not recognize her own husband, especially if he does not have ears?! The traditional story is entertaining, no doubt, but was also told by Herodotus, who had a way of embellishing, if not completely making up, stories and historical facts.
The original story is dramatically interesting. Although I would like to believe that this guy was able to trick everyone into believing he was another which includes the wife, I can’t. I would know if my husband was a different man by the way we hug or kiss, his features, especially if his ears were no longer there. So I will have to say that the second story is more realistic.
The modern version is the only version that makes any sense. I mean the original version almost seems as if it was a fable or tale passed down from generation to generation. I understand that not everyone could possibly know what their leaders looked like, but seriously someone would have noticed.
It’s fascinating how there can be so many different accounts for the same historical event. Without the presence of credible sources, these different explanations pop up and dispute each other. It just becomes word against word with no end in sight. I wonder how our history will look to people thousands of years in the future.
This whole article reminded me of Game of Thrones. Definitely sounds like a dramatic TV show. I also find it hard to believe that no one never noticed that he had no ears. A little ridiculous.
I also agree with modern revisionists. This article does not give evidence that Cambyses would have killed his brother.
It’s amazing how there can be so many accounts of the same story.
This was an interesting article. The Persians had a vast kingdom but yet, they let people like the Israelites come back and practice their religion. Interesting how Darius potentially fabricated the story of his own coup, and how in one story Cambyses killed his own brother for the throne, and kept it a secret. Interesting article that sheds light on new ideas.
I agree with the article, I just do not understand why Cambyses would kill his brother..
I found it shocking that Cambyses had a dream about his brother overtaking his throne, so he had him assassinated. Talk about crazy brother jealousy.
I would probably go with the more modern story. It seems to make more sense since Darius was so willing to take the throne. Although each story may have some truth to them.
Both accounts seem really bizarre to me, but if I had to chose one I think it would be the modern story. I don’t think someones wife would not realize that he was replaced until her father figured it out. Maybe there is some truth in both of them that should be taken into account.
I feel as if all of the stories have some truth to them, but we will never fully understand the ruling of Darius. Just like we commented on earlier in regards to historical movies being criticized for its inaccuracy, there is still some truth to them. Maybe if we can find a way to combine all these different stories about Darius in order to make sense it might be the truth.
Of course the second source sounds more credible but the first one is more entertaining in a way. I do think that the king came up with that story to make himself look and sound good so he could impress people I guess
I would agree with the modern revisionists. The ancient versions just seems too good to be true.
I have to agree with the original source version because of the story that is told is one out of complete craziness.
I would have to agree with the modern revisionists on this topic because the original seems a bit too dramatic or something that a modern day publicist would come up with for a client. The more modern story seems more probable.
I tend to agree with those who think the modern revisionist’s theory sounds more credible than the older theory that is based on Darius’s own account. The idea that everyone who was close to Bardiya did not notice that his imposter did not have any ears is a little far-fetched to me. On the other hand, the idea that Darius might revise historical accounts to make him sound better and more legitimate as a ruler is much more plausible.
Yeah, I’m not sure about the whole impersonation story. Even though history has been destroyed and rewritten on certain occasions, I think it might be a little ridiculous to say that he impersonated his brother for pretty much no reason. Although, crazier events have happened in history so I suppose that it is possible and perhaps the entire context of this situation is lost to history forever. It’s pretty interesting how a subject like history which might be seen as relatively objective and straightforward is not devoid of many different interpretations. There may not always be a simple answer which leads to better discussion in ambiguous situations such as this.
I honestly think that neither of these tales are true. It’s impossible to know for sure who actually killed Bardiya, and if Gaumata actually posed as the king. However, if I was going to believe a story, it would definitely be the modern version because it seems more plausible, especially since Darius was not even royal blood.
This tale more resembles those found in Greek mythology than something that would factually happen.
The second source seems more credible but the first one was
more entertaining to read. I think that there is some truth to each story even
if its just a tiny detail.
I think Darius the Great should have an * next to his name. From the sounds of it, Darius seems to have a great deal of luck with how he became the ultimate winner. I mean, good for him that he was able to expand the Persian empire and all. Just sounds sketchy to me. I don’t know if I would have trusted him with any of my secrets though.
Quite honestly, this article talks about this “power struggle” in a form that would seem entertaining for anyone who watches tv or movies. While the evidence for this can be seen in the Behistun Inscription however this is Darius’ view and does not explain all the reasons for the murder of Bardiya.
Both sources contain their own interesting factual information. However, I have to agree with the modern revisionists just because it seems more realistic than the second source.
I definitely agree with modern revisionists. This is because it seems crazy to think a woman would not recognize her own husband. There are far too many things that needed to have happened to make the other story plausible to me.
Darius’ account of the story lacks soundness. For someone’s own wife to not be able to recognize them until getting help from an outside party is absurd. For this reason i think Darius lacks credibility in this story.
I believe the modern historians are more credible because they have had so many advancements in technology that have made it easier and more accurate to research the past. The other story is wildly entertaining and reminds me of a soap opera. It seems too complex and there are so many unanswered question for it to be plausible.
The first version of Darius’ rise to power is too far-fetched for me to believe. It seems like a fairytale that people told to remember Darius. Unless there is some physical proof about either scenario than I can’t judge either one to be correct.
I would have to agree with the modern revisionists’ side of the story. With all of the advancements in technology their ideas are likely backed by more accurately interpreted historical evidence. Plus, it seems that their story of what happened is more logical and plausible than the previous one.
I think that Darius’s version of how he came to power is not believable enough for me. I would have to agree with the modern revisionists side. Darius may have made up the story about himself to give him a more powerful reputation.
It’s hard to say for sure which story is accurate. Either way, it’s fascinating how Darius would eventually become such a powerful ruler, even though he may not have been an immediate successor. I find it disturbing what some characters in history endured to have power.
Darius’s version of how he came to power, to me, is nothing more than a fable. The story was probably made up and passed along. It was entertaining and because honestly, who doesn’t love a good tale? I definitely agree with the modern revisionists.
Drama at its finest. I think using the ears being missing as a way to form a coupe is amazing. Its so
…simple yet brilliant. Coupes in this day and age are so complex… this is awesome… Great article.
It is very hard to believe whether or not Darius fabricated a story but at the same time, in order to takeover the throne it does make sense.
Re the revisionists, shouldn’t the incredibility of the story be a point in its favor, not against it? If it was as mundane as a political coup, no one would have bothered to remember it for 2500 years!
I feel as if fabrication was common during this era when it came to politics. However, I do not know if he is telling the truth or not about how he received the crown. It is hard to tell. Kind of like how media now exaggerates and only emphasizes on horrific details.
Whether it not Darius was the legitimate king It was amazing how one man had the drive to build the biggest empire in history even bigger that the roman empire
I was really confused about the ears thing. Wouldn’t they be able to see if his ears were cut off? And even though it is killing someone regardless of who it is, it seems justified. I wonder if it’s just a “tall tale” Darius had written down when he took the throne so people wouldn’t question his right to rule.
I kind of chuckle when reading about how he was a usurper because I am a Game of Thrones Fanatic and so I pictured the fat fictional king Robert Baratheon, who usurped the Mad King Aerys II Targaryen.
I did not know that there were such illegitimate claims to the throne in the ancient Persian empire.
I would have to lean towards the modern account of the story. People, both past and present, have a tendency to invent stories that legitimize their actions. — DAVID WARDLE
Both sides seem to have equal reasoning for being the “real” story. I want to believe the traditional story because I love the idea of plan like that working out so well.
I have to also agree with the modern take on how Darius came to power. While the first account is definitely more interesting, it seems like it could make for a good Hollywood movie. Darius also fabricating a story seems like something someone of great power as himself would have the capability to do. I believe it makes more sense.
I agree with the modern version, though maybe the way the story was told was special to Darius’s ruling. The first account was very interesting, I couldn’t believe that the wife’s father told her to feel for her husband’s ears!
This is an interesting story no matter which way you look at it. In either case, we have a person who is able to fool a large portion of the Persian population (Gaumata or Darius). I’m inclined to believe that the latter story told is a more accurate depiction of the truth. The former seems too good to be true.
i feel like this article doesn’t give me a sense of if Bardiya, Was he bad or was he Good?
Was Bardiya a tyrant or a just man??
Even before I read it on this article, I was thinking to myself, this sounds like a good TV show plot. Interesting article.
Darius was probably a big liar. aboutfuruli@weebly.com
Darius’s original story of how he came to power is confusing. it seems very likely just a made up tale.
The conquests of the Persian Empire was mass and impressive, long before Alexander the Great. You can build a thousand bridges, as the saying goes, but you will only be known for your one mistake. The battle of Thermopylae and Marathon sealed the Persians Empires modern common history as cannon fodder of the rise of Greek antiquity.
I think he did he used the events to get what he wanted and waited for it to all happen for him to gain power and rule as king like he wanted.
It is amazing to me that such drama was recorded and is very similar to drama we hear about today or see on TV. I guess it is just human nature, though. Although I would like to believe that he legitimately came to power, my gut feeling is that he did, in fact, kill the actual brother.
I hope I wouldn’t have to be told by others that someone took the place of my husband.
To me, the way That darius Said that it happened it a complete Lie. It make no sense that A man could die and his wife not even realize that the man she is now with isn’t even her husband
I’d side with the fact that Darius’ tale of how he came to power is simply just that, a tale. Lots of events that seemed to occur around his time were retold in a way to entertain those who heard it.
First account is a total soap opera. Based on other stories from the ancient civilizations on how people rose to power, it wouldn’t take me by surprise to hear that Darius made the whole story up in order to vouch for his newly obtained role of power. If I can pick up anything from this article that relates to modern day, it’s that everyone loves to be a story teller when it comes to a “he said, she said” deal.
I am not sure exactly which story I believe. But the older account seems more credible to me.
I am not sure exactly which story I believe. In my opinion, the older account sounds more credible than the modern account.
I do not know which I believe.
Reading this article caused me to come to the conclusion that Darius did make up this story so he could legitimize and justify how he murdered his brother and gained the thrown.
I would definitely agree with the modern version of the story. The older tale just sounds like nothing more than a tale.
The modern interpretation sounds way more believable than the older.
The older rendition on the story seems to be more believable to me personally.
KS.
I think the modern story is more likely. The older one seems too much like a fairy tale almost.
Being able to impersonate your brother to that point where even his wife wouldnt recognize you seems like a stretch to me.
You really can’t trust either of the sources because Darius was most likely fibbing a little in his story to make himself more heroic, but the historians were not around at the time to prove he didn’t do all those things, so i’d have to say the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of both those stories.
It seems more likely to me that Darius killed the actual brother of Cambyses and made up a story to legitimize his actions. Even if Bardiya’s wife were blind, it doesn’t seem possible that she could be fooled into thinking Gautmata was her husband for as long as Darius claimed in his story.
The most recent story is more believable in my opinion
The evidence is difficulty to determine, but it is a fascinating possibility.
ok
Neither story is truly believable to me, maybe if you could take parts from one and add it to another the story would be complete and make a little more sense. We will truly never know the full story or which story is the right story, who knows maybe another one will appear in the future.
Wow, this article blew my mind. I cannot help but return to the part where I read that he had his brother secretly murdered so he would not ascend the throne. I cannot imagine having my brother killed (royal or not).
I think the story of impersonation sounds more like a Hollywood movie than how Darius came to power. Another thing i found interesting is that Darius the Great is known for his loss at Marathon even though he grew the Persian empire. Its crazy that he known for his one mistake rather than his many accomplishments
I think that how Darius came to power is a little tale. I believe that he was a great leader but how he came to power doesn’t seem real. I think that it is great that he expanded the empire to be the largest. I think that overall he was a good leader but was did not come to power that way.
It is a good story. But I agree with what some of the others said, it was probably just a made up tale because every one loves a good story
I believe the second story is more believable for what actually happened. However because there is not actually any historical evidence for this version, I believe that it may be a combination of the two versions, r perhaps a less embellished version of the first story. Perhaps the brothers were twin? And instead of his whole ears missing maybe he had a definitive mark on them that was not noticeable from afar or unless really searching. Either was I think that the way Darius I was able to build the largest empire the world has seen is a pretty impressive feat in itself.
The modern version is definitely more believable. In the original, why of the seven that killed him did Darius become the ruler? It just seems too coincidental, and the rest of the story just too strange.
Although the original story seems more fun, the revisionist historical account seems far more believable. I just don’t know how Bardiya’s wife and harem couldn’t tell the difference between him and the magus… something about that doesn’t quite make sense. It is far more likely that the story was fabricated by Darius in order to legitimize his rule.
I think that the story of how Darius came to power is nothing more than an entertaining story that was passed through the generations.
Cool article, Darius’s story seems quite ridiculous and questionable.
This story is very interesting. The fact that nobody caught on about the impersonation is astonishing. He must have been a very good actor and known his brother very well to pull this off.
I agree with the modern revisionists. I think that Darius’ version is far too embellished and unbelievable. I don’t understand how anyone could kill their brother, let alone Cambyses in this scenario. Even if it was just a dream that Cambyses had Bardiya assassinated in because he was a potential rival, it is still to far fetched for me to believe.
Yeah, no way. I just don’t see how someone’s wife could not recognize them. But hey, it worked out for Darius I suppose. Very odd and risky way to secure a throne. Maybe they should try this on Game of Thrones.
This just goes to show how much conspiracy and controversy there was at this time over who would inherit the throne after a ruler died. People would do horrendous acts just to have a shot at gaining the kingship. The thing that puzzles me however is the fact that the wife of Bardiya had gone on for so long without realizing that there was a man with no ears impersonated her husband. How do you not notice that your husband no longer has ears? This is one of those really intriguing stories that history brings to us.
i agree with the modern version, the other seems to be a tall tale.
Would it not be possible that the Magus convinced the wife and the rest of the women to work alongside him. Obviously the women would lose stature if they turned the Magus in since they would no longer be a part of the King’s harem.
So much historical death, especially revolving religion.
I think that there will never actually be a way to tell how Darius came to power, each source will have its own bias and controversy along with it.
This story to me, is a fable but has become a legend. The primary sources would be the best trusted sources as they give a first-hand account of things.
Darius was well known as one of the Persian kings who failed at the attempt to conquer Greece. I will have to agree with the modern revised story because the original source seems to good to be true. It seems as if Darius was trying to tell a lie to make himself look more successful than he really was.
In my opinion, the whole ‘wife not recognizing that Gaumata isn’t Bardiya’ kind of throws that theory out the window for me.
It would be weird for a man to be murdered and have this man’s harem unquestioningly sleep with an impostor. Odd story.
Feels like a Game of Thrones situation: doing everything you can to get to the throne and then the intrigue of the impersonator. I’m actually surprised that George RR Martin did not put something like this into the earlier seasons.
Well, whenever someone tries to till another in order to be the ruler, there is always a juicy story behind it! At this point, either one could be true, but we will never know! I like to believe that the more complex story where they tricked the wife of Bardiya is true because it is more intriguing.
It is very messed up if Cambyses acutally had his brother Bardiya murdered and kept it a secret. And then for Guamata to impersonate Bardiya including his wife and women in his harem is just wrong.
This article was very interesting – and quite entertaining. Although it is often fun to believe old stories like this, this one is clearly made up. I just don’t understand how all of these women could sleep with Bardiya’s imposter and not realize it (because of the ears…). Although fun to read, I just don’t buy it!
I’m surprised we didn’t go over this in class at all. This is some A+ ancient drama. I’m gonna believe the primary sources just because I want to believe that elaborate plot actually went down.
It seems as if the modernized interpretation of the events are more believable. As we have seen in the course, many of the closest sources have the potential to be the most dramatized. Therefore, after reading this account, the guy definitely straight murdered the Magus. But hey, OJ was innocent too…
Darius’ story of how he came to power definitely seems to favor him too greatly to be entirely true. Additionally, it reads too much like a story than a real life account – as the article suggests, it is just too entertaining.
If only we knew what actually happened. This story is bogus. It sounds like something straight out of mythology.
This story actually reminds me a lot of the tale of Martin Guerre.
I think it is more likely that Darius killed the brother, but it is interesting to see how ancient events were recorded!
This was a very interesting story here, a little hard to follow though. I feel it somewhat resembled a soap opera show which is nice because it makes it easier to be interested in the history of King Darius. A lot worked out in his favor though which is a little concerning.
As much more exciting the original version is, I think the revised, modern version is most likely the more accurate of the two.
I believe that the modern version is more accurate and less fabricated than the other version.
You often see stories like this arise much more in modern day but it’s sort of funny that people acted like this even that long ago.
Very different from the movie, an interesting read
I feel as if there is no way to know, which source is better because sources could always be biased. Also, since one of the stories became a TV drama, they probably changed up the story in order to make the show much more exciting because Hollywood does that kind of stuff.
The events that took place make this story hard to believe, but if this actually happened that is crazy.
“Such scholars point to how if Darius’s version is correct, it means that even Bardiya’s own wife believed Gaumata to be her husband until her father had to convince her otherwise.” I think it’s a little hard to believe that this woman didn’t notice her ‘husband’ didn’t have ears.
Darius simply killed the actual brother of Cambyses and made up a nice story to legitimize his actions? This obviously could have gone either way. However in ancient times and even today their are more usurpers than history will ever know about.
maybe one is as crazy as they seem but maybe not we don’t know because we weren’t there
Seems as though we have no real way of knowing what actually happened, but we do know that Darius was a ruler, so he got there one way or the other, but the end result is the same.
The second account seems a bit more plausible than the first.
Seems exaggerated to me but the world will never know.
After so much fraud in ancient times, I wonder how much of recent news will be discovered to be fraud in the future, i’d imagine a lot.
I find the idea of a guy with no ears impersonating someone else successfully highly amusing. You would think his harem would notice.
Both stories are interesting and they’ve both probably been changed and added to as they’ve gone through history.
I am absolutely dumbfounded that a man with no ears was actually able to impersonate somebody for that long without anybody noticing, until the wife had to physically feel for them secretly.
I just don’t see how you couldn’t notice someone was impersonating your husband! This was definitely a fable. Maybe darius made it up because he did something even more evil or unmoral to gain the thrown and he wanted to shift blame and dislike on someone else.
How do people not notice someone impersonating a person? Obviously there has to be differences.
Even with the primary source, I find it hard to believe such a roundabout, day-time Soap’s story. I get the feeling that, as rulers around that time had a penchant for trying to make themselves seem grander than they actually were, making up stories would be one way to meet this end. If not, well, then, it is time we started making historical Soap Opera’s!